You are here: Home/Exemptions/ Examining the Rationale for Mandatory Vaccinations

Examining the Rationale for Mandatory Vaccinations

February 25, 2015 By Vaccine Choice Canada

An analysis of the Mandatory Vaccinations position and where it is leading

There is a bitter debate raging in our media on the dangers of not complying with the current “recommended” vaccination schedule. There is serious consideration being given by provincial governments to removing personal exemptions with regards to the medical practice of vaccination. This would result in the vaccination of all children and adults regardless of their consent. This is a very significant matter in the history of a free and democratic society and ought to be taken very seriously.

In the debate the more reasonable proponents of vaccination will admit that vaccinations cause severe damage, including death, in some children. They might also admit that they don’t know what percentage of children and adults are negatively and permanently affected by vaccines, but believe that the risk from not vaccinating is substantially higher than the risk of vaccinating.

And, while they might also admit that they don’t really know what the risk of not vaccinating for various illnesses is in today’s society, they trust that their doctor, government institutions, and the pharmaceutical industry is looking out for their best interest and will make the right decisions.

Thus the position of most Canadians with regards to vaccinations is almost entirely based upon trust of authorities within government and the pharmaceutical industry and the belief that government is conducting proper and independent oversight. As a consequence, the majority of Canadians are of the belief that vaccines are safe and effective in preventing disease.

As everyone is entitled to their beliefs, those who believe in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines can choose to vaccinate, and those who don’t believe in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines can choose to abstain.

The problem that creates a significant challenge for society today is the idea of ‘herd immunity’. Herd immunity is a theory that suggests that an individual’s choice to vaccinate is not sufficient. Rather, according to the interpretation today of the theory of herd immunity, in order to be fully protected from disease everyone must be vaccinated.

If you don’t believe in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines or trust that government and the pharmaceutical industry will keep you safe, then society needs to impose vaccinations upon you or your children against your will. The loss of Canadian Charter rights to “freedom of conscience and religion” and “Security of the Person” is deemed justified for the “greater good”.

This situation is challenged by the parents of vaccine damaged children who talk about the damage vaccines have done to their child. This talk undermines the belief in the safety of vaccines and undermines the trust in the vaccine program. In an effort to protect this medical program—a program that is largely based on trust—parents of vaccine damaged children need to be silenced and discredited. This is what is occurring today in our national media.

But what if:

vaccines are not as safe as we’ve been led to believe

vaccines are not as effective in preventing disease as we’ve been led to believe

the motive of profit has undermined the integrity of the science that deems vaccines safe and effective. (For example, consider the 2 current lawsuits alleging fraud by Merck (links below).

governments don’t provide independent oversight and risk analysis

The challenge is that the system as currently constructed has no independent oversight, no independent evaluation of risk, and no effective counter balance to the drive for more and more vaccines to be “recommended” by the pharmaceutical industry. Witness the tripling of the number of vaccines recommended since 1980 from 23 doses by age 18 to 70 doses today.

Consider:

The vaccine industry in the USA is exempted from legal liability for their products. In Canada, the industry enjoys de facto exemption due to the requirements of our court system to prove negligence as well as causation in vaccine injury cases.

The issue of vaccination has become so politically charged that no government official or institution will openly question the need for vaccinations.

The media has been told that the “science on vaccines is settled” and that giving voice to vaccine safety concerns is irresponsible journalism and therefore balance in reporting and programming concerning vaccines in neither warranted or required.

As a consequence:

There is no industry accountability.

We have no effective government oversight.

There is no legal accountability.

There is no media scrutiny or oversight.

The system is perfectly designed to encourage and enable an unlimited number of vaccines to be “recommended” and ultimately mandated without informed consent or choice. It is a system that is growing exponentially. Some would say it is a system that is out of control. A 2013 report (link below) of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) states that nearly 300 vaccines are under development. 137 of these are to combat infectious diseases. How many of these would be mandated against one’s will?

The only remaining force of accountability is those parents whose children have been damaged by vaccines. And while this number is growing at an increasing rate, their ability to have their voices heard is being increasingly diminished.

Unless something changes, more and more vaccines will be mandated and our personal freedom of choice over our own body and that of our children will be lost.

If this is the Canada we want, we are on the right track.

If this is not the Canada we want, then our rights to informed consent, personal freedom and security of the person need to be respected and protected.

Antitrust, FCA Claims on Merck Mumps Vaccine to Advance – Sept. 5, 2014: Two lawsuits accusing Merck & Co. Inc. of lying about the efficacy of its mumps innoculation in order to keep competitors from bringing their own versions of the vaccine to market will move forward after a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled in favor of whistleblowers and direct purchasers Thursday. ”